The article says: "such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal".
Oh yes, it has a goal! It was a terrorist attack, and it had to be played down for this reason:
President Obama needed to be able to say say there were NO terrorist attacks on his watch. Sadly that wasn't the case, so he had to call the terrorist attack a spontaneous eruption of violence, or whatever.
President Bush could in fact claim NO terrorist attacks on his watch during his 2nd term. That's about the only thing his opponents would concede. He didn't have to lie.
I'm not surprised The Economist missed this point, as this paper is no longer what it used to be.

Ridiculous. There have already been terrorist attacks on his watch. There is no difference whether the terrorists used a demonstration as cover or whether it was an outright attack by terrorists.

There were SIX attacks on U.S. embassies during Bush's second term: March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan (killed American diplomat David Foy); September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria; January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece; July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey; March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen; September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen.

I was a bit unspecific I realize. Of course there were attacks, but none were successful. There were US casualties, but certainly no US ambassador was killed in those attacks. Those killed were mostly foreign guards and people at nearby locations, like a school with many casualties. Thus they could not be called successful.

Thing were going well in this respect for President Obama until just before the elections. The president really could claim there were no successful embassy or other attacks on his watch. However somebody in the administration denied the Libyan embassy increased protection when it was urgently requested. The ambassador was killed and to President Obama this was a real embarrassment. Almost four good years in which bin Laden was finally killed and several attacks were foiled. A disaster, because it happened during the campaign. People had to be misled, if only until after the elections. So that's what happened and the responsibility is still unclear.

"Thing were going well in this respect for President Obama until just before the elections. "

Your theory requires so much stretching past all common sense. You mention Bush's second term because in Bush's first term a terrorist killed 3,000 (a lot more than 4) Americans. And he was still re-elected.

Obama could have easily used an al qaida attack as a rallying cry for voters. "Elect me because we're under terrorist threat and I'm the guy who killed Bin Laden."

The fact is that Republicans are incensed that Obama didn't politicize a terrorist attack in the same way they politicized terrorist attacks under Bush. So suddenly they're seeing something that doesn't exist. "No act of terror shall...." that was Obama's phrase in the Rose Garden the same day....are the American people stupid? Was there ever a moment when we thought that the attack on our Libyan ambassador was in no way related to the war on terror?

There's this strange sense of projection going on with Republicans. Bush, not Obama, posed in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign. Obama never claimed that the war on terror was over. Republicans, not Democrats, sent Colin Powell to the U.N. to argue using inaccurate intelligence on Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. Bush, not Obama, sent a woman named Rice to hearings in which it was uncovered that an e-mail had been titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S." And that Rice, Condi, not Susan, argued that the Bush administration had treated that e-mail as "historical" and did not in fact use it to prevent 9-11.

As for your claims, "somebody in the administration denied the Libyan embassy increased protection when it was urgently requested. The ambassador was killed and to President Obama this was a real embarrassment." It was worse than an embarrassment. It was a serious tragedy. Can we just say that both sides of the political aisle agree that it was a serious tragedy and not simply an "embarrassment"?

But it's coming across increasingly as projection that Republicans see a cover-up where the rest of us see nothing worth covering up. Our Libyan ambassador wasn't even at the embassy when he was killed. He was at a nearby compound. His security detail should have been stronger or he would be alive today. But I don't think you're going to find any evidence that the Obama administration wanted our ambassador to be killed. Why would he?

It's clear that Republicans will keep pressing this line against all reason though in the hope of politically damaging the President.

"But I don't think you're going to find any evidence that the Obama administration wanted our ambassador to be killed. Why would he?"
I'm not suggesting that, and yes, it certainly was a tragedy.

The reason I kept President Bush's first term out of my argumentation was that I think the attack was exceptional. The agencies that should have prevented it, were not up to the task. Most Americans accepted that and so they supported the president for the 2nd term to continue or even finish the war on terror.

I agree that President Obama could have used the Libya attack as a rallying cry as you describe, but he didn't. There was much focus on the islam video when the attack took place and that may have confused the issue. Maybe the president wasn't sure whether it was an attack on the 9/11 anniversary or a "spontaneous eruption of violence" due to the video. My bet is that he knew within a few hours it was a successful terrorist attack, but chose to pretend otherwise, to keep his safety record intact.
I remember thinking for several days after the attack that it was all due to the video, because that's what I heard through the media. I think President Obama would have handled this incident differently, had it not occurred so close to the elections.
The details of the attack disgusted me and I'm sure it enraged many Americans. In my opinion the president still hasn't quite understood the anger that this attack caused in the country.

"This is absolutely right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a 'cover-up' over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal."

Am I reading The Economist or a high school newspaper. The goal is to disguise and deny any evidence that, in fact, Al Qaeda is not resurgent and still a threat to be reckoned with. Use your heads!

Simple logic should prevail. Stop splitting hair about the interpretation of a few words, but DO remember that americans were killed and be better prepared, as this could happen again, almost anywhere.j

I don't think Ambassador Rice has any significant info about Benghazi and questioning her is probably a waste of time. I do think there is something very wrong about the incident. For example, after the Americans got the Ambassador's body back from the terrorists, they did not conduct an autopsy. That seems inconceivable. Determining exactly how he died would have been essential in determining if he was tortured for information and autopsy could have been used to aid in determining the identity of the killers.

JeffreyBee, There’s simply no evidence whatsoever that the terrorists had custody of Ambassador Stevens, either alive or dead. All accounts from those at the scene say he was pulled from one of the burning buildings by locals and taken to a nearby hospital. His identity was unknown until several hours later. Doctors at the hospital reported that he died of smoke inhalation. That’s not the same as an official autopsy, but it also doesn’t mean there wasn’t an official autopsy. His body (and those of the other 3 Americans) arrived at Dover Air Force Base on September 14. I seriously doubt the U.S. Government didn’t conduct an autopsy on all 4 men. That would be standard practice, and necessary to issue a death certificate. Thank You.

Man, if only Republicans got as angry at the Bush Administration for failing to stop 9/11 and for failing to find WMDs in Iraq as they are about Obama taking a few days to classify this as a terrorist attack...

I get it, Obama took a week to call this a terrorist attack, which is inexcusable.

Meanwhile, under Bush, 3000+ Americans died in a terrorist attack, and we launched a war looking for WMDs in Iraq that didn't exist.

Obama's mess up is FAR worse, I know, but seriously, can't you find it in your hearts to forgive him?

Forgiveness requires repentance. This is not about forgiveness, this is about incompetence and coverup, the same incompetence in foreign policy that happened under George W. Bush, without the coverup. All administrations lie, it's the nobel lie Plato gave us in the Republic, but the Obama administration is serial.

"the same incompetence in foreign policy that happened under George W. Bush, without the coverup."

Are you unaware of the intelligence flaws in Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. on the case for war in Iraq? Saddam did not pose the nuclear threat that the Bush administration claimed.

This idea that somehow Obama was worse is ludicrous to most of us with our eyes open. There's nothing to cover in Benghazi. If you have any new evidence then share it, otherwise each new piece of evidence added to the case shows that the Obama administration was not the author of Susan Rice's talking points. The CIA and the Department of Homeland Security wrote and signed off on those points, so if you want to dispute them, take it up with the CIA, FBI and the DNI. They had no reason to politicize this.

Ms. Rice was definitely set up for failure by someone. The White House has clearly stated she had nothing to do with Benghazi, yet put her out as the spokesperson for the official administration position. Illogical. It is also important to note, that while she may have had the official talking points in her hand, immediately before her on Face The Nation, Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf stated, "The way these perpetrators acted and moved, I think we-- and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no-- this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined-- predetermined.". At this point a skilled diplomat would have found the balance between the two opposing positions, or simply dodged making any definitive statement. She could have easily said the investigation was ongoing and no conclusions could be definitively stated. Instead the conversation went like this,

"BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

The show continued with Sen. McCain being interviewed,

"BOB SCHIEFFER: ... Senator, you've got to help me out here. The president of Libya says that this was something that had been in the works for two months, this attack. He blames it on al Qaeda. Susan Rice says that the State Department thinks it is some sort of a spontaneous event. What-- what do you make of it?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-Arizona): Most people don't bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration. That was an act of terror, and for anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is really ignoring the facts."

As we now know, the intelligence community from the beginning knew this was a preplanned attack. Therefore, the sticking point with Amb. Rice was she either knew the truth and blatantly lied, was unaware of the truth and chose to ignore the President of the host nation's statement, in effect declaring him at best ill-informed about events in his own country, or at worst a liar, or she was just so clueless about the entire situation she was blindly reading from a script. None of those options is what we want to see in our next Secretary of State. That individual can not be unaware, cannot be insensitive to the opinions of foreign leaders, and cannot be a mere mouthpiece blindly repeating talking points. To try to cast Senators McCain and Graham as anything but genuinely concerned elected representatives performing their duty is unfair. We can disagree with their position, but should not question their motives. There are a number of highly qualified candidates being bandied about as potential nominees for SecState. Amb. Rice's performance has removed her from that list, and the President should move on to someone better qualified, and more likely to easily gain confirmation. Sen. John Kerry comes immediately to mind.

To try to cast Senators McCain and Graham as anything but genuinely concerned elected representatives performing their duty is unfair."

What? Are you joking?

You're making the same dishonest partisan attack on Susan Rice that McCain and Graham are by saying that either she was incompetent or lying, despite the fact that this article you're commenting on offers solid arguments and evidence that she was not incompetent or lying when she made the statements she did. Read the article you're commenting on before commenting. At least then you can comment on this article's evidence instead of just regurgitating the same tired right wing talking points on this issue that haven't been updated in six weeks now, regardless of new information, some of which that this very article presents, that fatally weakens that old Republican Benghazi song and dance.

So, to answer your statement more definitively, no it's not in the least unfair to call McCain and Graham ridiculous on this issue. Their friend the independent Joe Liberman for once was not at their side. Do you know why not? Maybe Lieberman for once saw John McCain engaging in partisan character assassination for reasons of personal bitterness. McCain's attack on Rice is blatantly dishonest, blatantly unfair, blatantly illogical, and yes, McCain deserves to be called on it.

Please review your own language - "dishonest", "regurgitating", "song and dance", "ridiculous", "partisan character assassination", "personal bitterness","blatantly dishonest", blatantly unfair", "blatantly illogical". I commented with the facts as I see them, with the references to back them up. I kept it short and focused on the issue at hand, and did not even go into Amb. Rice's history of flawed decisions and counsel to the SecState. She arguably played a large part in tying our hands in the US military and freeing the militias to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the Rwandan genocide. Of note, she continues to provide top cover for Kagame. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/24/susan-rice-critics_n_2184630.html
In the future, if you wish to follow my lead and respond with the same factual evidence, links to factual references, etc. please do. If I am on the wrong path, please help to educate me. However, if you are only capable of responding with emotional hyperbole, please refrain from sullying this otherwise relatively intellectual forum. To paraphrase one of my original comments - You can disagree with my position, but you should not question my motives.

To be clear: you have no problem questioning President Obama's motives, or Susan Rice's motives, but you don't want your own motives to be questioned?

Here's some of the language you used in your previous comment: "Rice was she either knew the truth and blatantly lied, was unaware of the truth and chose to ignore the President of the host nation's statement, in effect declaring him at best ill-informed about events in his own country, or at worst a liar, or she was just so clueless about the entire situation she was blindly reading from a script."

Using the words "clueless" "ill-informed" "liar" "blindly" etc. are far from being neutral debate words. Your emotions are wrapped around the words you've chosen.

Peace - interesting - If we are to find peace we need to spend more time with our hand to our chin in thought than our fist in the air in anger. May you find the peace Georg Christoph Lichtenberg spoke of.

?! "Better qualified?!" John Kerry earned a "C" average in college. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was so committed to understanding the world, she earned an "A average.Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was a Rhodes Scholar who earned her Phd at Oxford. While there her dissertation was given the prize as the most distinguised scholarly study on foreign policy in ALL of ENGLAND! Brilliant Dr. Rice worked at the STATE DEPARTMENT, home of the job in question, for decades earning awards for her stellar work there. John Kerry is NOT "more qualified" than Dr. Susan Rice. President Obama has great candidates to choose from, but if doesn't choose Rice it won't be because she's "less qualified."

Smoky, the CIA and the U.S. government have been terrible judges of character in dealing with friends and foes alike too often long before brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was even BORN for you to TRY to pile on her for getting disappointed in a foreign leader or two who she thought might turn out fairly decent! Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was Valedictorian of her High School Class where she played 3 sports and was Student Council President. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice graduated with Honors from Stanford where she won Departmental and University Honors and later won the Harry S. Truman Prize. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was a Rhodes Scholar who earned her Phd at Oxford. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice won the Prize for writing the most distinguished dissertation on foreign policy in ALL of ENGLAND. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice has won awards for her stellar work at our very own State Department where she worked for DECADES!Yet John McCain, who by his own ADMISSION graduated in the BOTTOM 5 of HIS Class, had the unmitigated GALL to call Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice "not too bright!" ?!?!!!!??? This country needs all the great brain power it can get. For McCain to look at a GENIUS who happens to have a black female face and knee jerk a "not too bright" "assessment" is a tragedy in itself. It's time for him to retire from the Senate!

Thank you for your critique of my observation.
I will offer you a few points that I find disagreeable:
1.
Susan Rice quite knew when she made the talk show rounds that her information was inaccurate. Foreign new sources had already reported that this was an overt terrorist attack.
This is not adequately address in the article. If she were the mouthpiece of the administration then she would also have the correct information.
2.
The author does not effectively make the case that a coverup did not benefit the administration. It quite clearly did help Obama in terms of showing a strong foreign policy. The story spun by the White House put the blame on some idiot in California rather than the administration
3.
The analogy is specious at best and quite lacking in relevance to the larger issue.
4.
Trying to argue that McCain is attempting to make a partisan issue out of nothing, shifts the burden of the event from the administration and onto a third party.
Those are my specific reasons. I not partisan, I support planks in both parties. This though, has not been right from the beginning.
Regards,
MAD

1.Susan Rice quite knew when she made the talk show rounds that her information was inaccurate. Foreign new sources had already reported that this was an overt terrorist attack.
This is not adequately address in the article. If she were the mouthpiece of the administration then she would also have the correct information.

From the article "As Mr Drum says, everything Ms Rice said on September 15th was in fact the judgment at that moment of American intelligence agencies, and she relayed that judgment accurately. The only thing that was even arguably wrong in those intelligence assessments was the claim that there had been a copycat protest over those anti-Muslim YouTube videos in Benghazi; intelligence agencies didn't start calling this into question until some time later. "Berating Rice, who had nothing to do with Benghazi aside from representing the administration on these talk shows, is nuts," Mr Drum writes. "The intelligence community was wrong about one relatively unimportant fact, and Rice passed along that mistake. That's it. There's no coverup, no conspiracy, no incompetence, no scandal."

2.
The author does not effectively make the case that a coverup did not benefit the administration. It quite clearly did help Obama in terms of showing a strong foreign policy. The story spun by the White House put the blame on some idiot in California rather than the administration

You do not seem to hear the argument of the article. If the attack on the ambassador had risen out of a spontaneous protest, rather than being a pre-planned attack, voters don't see that as being an important detail. Either way, our ambassador was killed. Either way the Obama administration was equally culpable. It's not like voters would say, "because this was a spontaneous attack, now we feel that Obama's foreign policy is better than we thought it was when we thought the attack had been preplanned."

If Rice said the attackers were wearing green pants when in fact they were wearing red pants, this would have been unlikely to be a cover-up, because the color of their pants does not matter to voters.

3.
The analogy is specious at best and quite lacking in relevance to the larger issue.

Huh?

4.
Trying to argue that McCain is attempting to make a partisan issue out of nothing, shifts the burden of the event from the administration and onto a third party.
Those are my specific reasons. I not partisan, I support planks in both parties. This though, has not been right from the beginning.

If there is a non-partisan side to this issue, then where is the evidence for it? McCain got personal and even called Rice stupid and incompetent. McCain deserves to be in the spotlight on this issue because he's put himself there.

1. Even the former CIA head explained that right after the attack it was believed what had occurred was a thoughtful planned-out attack. Rice got on national television and made claims that were quite untrue. I am curious how this information got removed from the talking points that Petraeus testified was in the briefing.

Regardless, it was quite obvious that it was not a reaction to the darned video and our leaders insisted for far too long that it was related to. It was obvious almost immediately that it was not. You just had to watch the news. It was NOT a relatively unimportant fact. It is absurd to even argue that.

Using the article to respond to my points which where in response to the articles does nothing but illustrate the problems with the piece itself.

The analogy the author uses makes no sense in context to the purposes of the article. It uses a story about the two senators to distract from the issues that they are having with the debacle as a whole.

A non-partisan side? There is something wrong with how the events played out according to our government. I will concede that responsibility on aspects of the funding rest with both parties and two of the branches. The overall responsibility rests with the State Department and the White House. That aside, I believe that the White House gave us the information in piecemeal fashion due to the upcoming election. I believe they politicized it before the Republicans even got the chance to.

Honestly, as I watched all the Sunday shows that weekend where Rice made the claims that she did ... I found myself staring at her in disbelief thinking the same things that McCain said. I was amazed.

The talking points were both written and signed off on by the CIA and by the Department of Homeland Security. Do you need more evidence that this was the case? Or are you determined to ignore evidence that contradicts your assertion that Rice was "lying"? Or are you accusing the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security of "lying"? You might be surprised to know this, but the CIA's job, in a sense, is lying. They aren't always straight forward in the way they do business. They're spies, after all.

Also, have you looked again at Rice's actual statements? She did not ever state that the attack came from a spontaneous demonstration, but that this was a current theory. Which it was.

And Petraeus did not say what you think he said. He said that he personally thought that the al quaida link was correct immediately after it happened. But he also signed off on Rice's talking points and it was the Department of Homeland Security that wanted the al qaida reference taken out, for legal reasons.

This argument has become a matter not of differing opinions but of differing facts. Which is frustrating. Where is your factual evidence that the white house or Susan Rice rather than the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA determined Rice's talking points that day?

Also, why do you not address this article's main point: there's no motivation for a cover-up here. If Rice said immediately that this was an al qaida attack--that would not have changed the fact that our ambassador died and it was under Obama's watch. Obama had never held a 'Mission Accomplished' banner over the war on terror. In general, an al qaeda attack will help the President who is in office because people trust the person who is in charge to handle the situation. Bush was re-elected after al qaeda attacked the U.S. And so was Obama. Obama had no advantage either way. An ambassador was dead. Obama was responsible because it happened under his watch. This issue has become a trivial quibbling over details that to most voters simply don't matter. Obama said withing 24 hours "no act of terror shall..." Do you really think he meant to "fool" Americans into thinking that, either way, the attack on our ambassador was in no way related to an "act of terror"? Do you think it was accidental that he used that exact phrase?

Still, I guess it's like 9-11 conspiracy theories under Bush or birth certificate theories under Obama. Once a "cover up" or "conspiracy" is alleged, there's literally no factual proof or preponderance of evidence that can take away the suspicions of those who believe, either way, that the party accused is guilty as charged. I defended George Bush from 9-11 conspiracy theories, because I did not and do not believe Bush would or could kill Americans for political advantage in that way. And I say exactly the same thing about Obama. Obama had no political advantage to be gained either from our ambassador's death or from the way in which he died.

"That aside, I believe that the White House gave us the information in piecemeal fashion due to the upcoming election. I believe they politicized it before the Republicans even got the chance to. "

I'm just going to point out that you believe this, even though so far there is no piece of evidence that factually supports your theory.

You ignored it before, but I'm posting this again. The FBI, the CIA and the DNI wrote and signed off on Susan Rice's talking points. You believe that the white house wrote those talking points, so you believe that the CBS reporting and other news sources including the economists are not factually bringing you the truth?

So which news sources do you have that demonstrate factual evidence linking the white house specifically to Susan Rice's talking points? Or is it just your hunch the way some people have a hunch that Obama was not born in the U.S.?

MA Dooley, that is a LIE. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice did NOT know that her info was "inaccurate!" And she has been EXONERATED by none other than the HEAD of the CIA (Gen.Petraeus) at the time who has now told Congressional members that he had the SAME early intel that brilliant Dr. Susan Rice discussed on those Sunday morning talk shows! And it is OBVIOUS that McCain, Graham, and company were making a partisan issue of this or Republicans and POX "News" would have been at least as exercised over George W. Bush's LIES about Iraqis' alleged "role" in the Twin Towers tragedy where THREE THOUSAND of our fellow citizens died ON OUR OWN SOIL as they are pretending to be about FOUR wonderful fellow citizens dying in HOSTILE territory OVERSEAS! Partisan HACKS- the LOT of them!

The issue is far more serious than red pants v. green, and I have no idea where this article came from. The issue is that American representatives in Libya asked for protection three times, and it was denied three times. The British had left Libya. The Red Cross had left. The suspicion is that political operatives judged Libya as critical to demonstrating the success of Obama policy in the mideast, and so protection was not granted. When the attack was underway, they screamed for help. They put flares announcing their position, in the belief that help was on its way. But nothing happened. Which is incredible. An ambassador is dead. That is stunning. Susan Rice? She lost all credibility by firmly arguing for a lie at time when other US goverment people knew it was a lie. At the time I heard this, I knew her career was over. Really, do you think Angela Merkel is going to be able to keep a straight face while listening to Susan Rice? I don't think so. Susan Rice was thrown under the bus to save the boss. To accuse McCain & Graham of grandstanding is ridiculous. They want to know why help wasn't sent and why we left an Ambassador in such a dangerous position.

Proud Republican, you should not be so proud to know that it was the hypocritical Republican-led Congress that REFUSED to adequately fund the State Department Security budget as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requested quite some time ago! It's clear that all their caterwauling was PROJECTION of their OWN guilt onto brilliant, guiltLESS Dr. Susan Rice and others who are blameless in this! Btw, Dr. Susan Rice has been proven to have told the TRUTH by none other than the HEAD of the CIA at the time HIMSELF who just told Congress that HE'D received the SAME early intel that Dr. Rice discussed on those Sunday morning talk shows! Didn't you get the memo?

The GOP wrong about McCain and Graham, plain and simple. The election wasn't going to turn on it, one way or the other, but it sure showed what the American people think of those two. There's no denying that McCain, in particular, has lurched VERY, VERY far to the right since 2008. ANY respect I had for him has disappeared because of his rightward shift.

Attacks like Benghazi are part of the cost of doing business in the MIddle East -- they're going to happen, whether we like it or not -- there's not much we can do to control them.

The GOP is hardly blameless on this, either. As the party of no, they wouldn't provide the funding for extra security. Why aren't we hearing outrage on that matter?

To me, the whole episode is another attempt by Republicans to choose obstruction over governing. They despise the Obama administration so much that they're willing to see the country go down, rather than make any real effort at trying to come up with workable solutions to the problems that confront us all.

There's nothing 'fishy' about it and you are seriously deluded to think that something on an order of magnitude larger than Watergate should just be 'glossed' over. The MSM and the once admired profession of jounalism are truly becoming just as 'sick' as that old oxymoron of 'ethical government'.

?!? "Watergate?! Are you going to let John "Bottom 5 of HIS Class" McCain and POX "News" lead you by the nose on this? Clearly terrorist attacks should be compared to terrorist attacks -- not to some bungling burglary attempt at the Watergate Building!Which brings us to the REAL question. Why were some Republicans and POX "News" not nearly so upset over George W. Bush LYING about Iraqis' alleged "role" in the Twin Towers tragedy where THREE THOUSAND of our fellow citizens died ON OUR OWN SOIL than they allegedly are about FOUR of our citizens dying in HOSTILE territory OVERSEAS?! Because they're partisan HACKS who are politicizing a tragedy. THAT'S why. Dr. Susan Rice AND President Obama are innocent in this. The CIA, via General Petraeus JUST exonerated brilliant Dr. Susan Rice! Didn't you get the Memo?

?! "Incompetence?!" Don't be a racist twit. General Petraeus JUST exonerated Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice. He stated before Congressional members that HE, as HEAD of the CIA, had received the SAME early intel as Dr. S. Rice! AND anyone who actually WATCHED those shows she appeared on (and millions have) knows that she QUALIFIED her comments with words like "currently this is the info we have, but an investigation is underway." Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was Valedictorian of her class, Honors graduate at Stanford, and Rhodes Scholar who earned a PhD from Oxford. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice received the prize as having written the most distinguished dissertation on foreign policy in ALL of ENGLAND! Dr. Susan Rice, having worked at the State Department for DECADES, received AWARDS for her stellar work there. There's NOTHING "incompetent" about this woman. Only blithering, idiotic racists have TRIED to continue to suggest such a thing!

?! "Incompetence?!" Don't be a racist twit. General Petraeus JUST exonerated Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice. He stated before Congressional members that HE, as HEAD of the CIA, had received the SAME early intel as Dr. S. Rice! AND anyone who actually WATCHED those shows she appeared on (and millions have) knows that she QUALIFIED her comments with words like "currently this is the info we have, but an investigation is underway." Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice was Valedictorian of her class, Honors graduate at Stanford, and Rhodes Scholar who earned a PhD from Oxford. Brilliant Dr. Susan Rice received the prize as having written the most distinguished dissertation on foreign policy in ALL of ENGLAND! Dr. Susan Rice, having worked at the State Department for DECADES, received AWARDS for her stellar work there. There's NOTHING "incompetent" about this woman. Only blithering, idiotic racists have TRIED to continue to suggest such a thing!

Actually, the CIA Director corroborated brilliant Dr. Susan Rice's comments about the early intel, if anything! And why do Republicans expect us to believe they're sooooo "upset" now when they were not nearly so exercised over George W. Bush's PROVEN LIES about Iraqis' alleged "role" in the Twin Towers tragedy where THREE THOUSAND of our fellow citizens died!! Hypocritical, partisan HACKS!

McCain is a sore loser and still has not gotten over his humiliating loss to Obama in the 2008 presidential election. McCain has disgraced himself by transforming himself from a moderate Republican to a ultra conservative Republican. He should just fade away, instead of embarrassing himself in the public arena.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, McCain has lost his credibility that was earned over such a long tenure........ he really hasn't gotten over that loss to Obama as you state. You can see that drastic shift from 2008 onwards. A sore loser, absolutely!

The email summary that I get from the Economist made it look like Amb. Rice had written the comments. The anecdote that seemed to be from someone in the diplomatic corp and other comments posted here reinforced the connection.

I admit I'm wrong. Will Amb. Rice ever do the same?

"False but not a lie" was what line the Bushies used after Iraq, I was hoping for at least something new from Barry's crew.

With the vast intelligence resources afforded by me, I knew Amb. Rice was incorrect when she went on the Sunday propoganda tour.

Their are two options.

Either Amb. Rice is not intelligent enough to understand what was clearly going on in Libya or she was part of the political spin that was trying to get people to forget about the assasination of one of our Amb. Yes, assasination. A word that you do not hear usd to descibe the political motivated killing of a govt official. All the news sources use 'murdered' as if he were walkign thru an olive grove and was killed for his wallet.

Either way Amb. Rice showing the same kind of group think that got Amb. Powell in trouble. One doubts that Rice will back Rubio in the next election cycle.

"the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration." Pretty much proves she is a political light-weight. Is that sexist or racist to say, or try to add some other -ism for a triffecta of slander.